Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
852
In this case when I have been writing about IBIS or OS I have ment the optical Stabilisation in Sigma’s Bigma 150-500mm. In Sigma optical stabilization happens to be called just that and Sony calles it OSS and Nikon VR and so on. Same same but different acronyms.
IBIS is better when you are in a hurry and OS when you are not. On Sony´s E-mount-cameras with adapter LAEA-3 unlike with Nikon Z there is nothing stopping you from having both systems on but that will result in unsharp images since these system interferes with one another. IBIS and lens stabilization like Sigma OS is only working together properly with modern E-mount lenses.
What is the best way to clean “scum” (not dust) from a camera sensor that had never been cleaned in something approaching 20 years? The standard cleaning at the local camera repair shop got rid of most of the “dust” on the sensor, but there is “grunge/scum” on the sensor that didn’t come off.
To see the problem, view this image at 100%, and move the window up and down. There is “scum” all over the sensor, along with at least three dust specs.
The shop will re-do the cleaning tomorrow.
Edited today, Tuesday April 16. Everything seems fixed. Free re-cleaning is available for four more weeks.
From what I understood now is that OS is an angular correction. The correcting lens is moving a little and the sensor stays unchanged. The IBIS is moving the sensor. Moving it on 5 axes would mean 1) horizontal 2)vertical 3)forwards and backwards 4)turning around the horizontal ax and 5) turning around the vertical ax. My own thoughts.
That means for me that only 1) and 2) keeps the sensor in the focal plane.
In 3) you‘re wrong, I believe and cheating a bit because before and after 3) you used a topic number for one direction and now you name two. It would be „along the optical axis“. Actually, 5 axis systems don‘t move the sensor in that direction, it would impact focus pane more than a little body shake towards or away of the subject. Instead, they turn it around the optical axis. To my (maybe false) knowledge Olympus, Panasonic and Sony have this 5-axis compensation and at least Olympus claims, lens and sensor actuators are orchestrated as one system. I‘ve seen images taken at 1 sec and no tripod (on DPR)
horizontal moving to the left and the right, 2)vertical moving up and down
But these stay in the focal plane, the other 3 not.
Around the optical ax is a combination of 1) and 2).
I still don’t have the 5 axes.
No, it’s not. Moving in sensor pane along vertical and horizontal axis is a linear cartesian movement, combined it still is only moving one point in one direction. Direction and distance are the same for each point on the sensor pane.
If you turn your camera around its optical axis, you cannot equalize this movement in one linear direction, as many points need to be moved in different distances. Direction and distance are NOT the same for each point on the sensor pane.
This can be done with a polar movement: turning the sensor around an axis parallel to the optical axis of the lens. Imagine a horizontal line or a skyscraper. You’re holding it with two hands, trying to remain as stable as possible. Then you activate the shutter by pushing the release button. That hand will immediately become less stable and soon the whole system is not shifted in one direction, but shifted and tilted in multiple directions, some of them linear, others polar (yaw, tilt and roll).
In machinery, these axis are X and Y (linear movement) and A, B, C (rotating movement). The Z-axis would be the autofocusing unit which additionally also could move if the subject changes the distance to the camera. Plenty of things going on.
I tried two different settings on the Lumix: One (top row) is compensation of lens (vertically and horizontally) AND sensor (turned around the optical axis of the lens). The other (bottom row) is compensation done ONLY by sensor movement.
One of the biggest discusions is about panning, tracking BIF’s and IBIS.
IBIS uses giro’s to determine the tilt and horizontal skew and movement of the body to correct wile as far as i know most Optical Stabilisators only movement of the frontlens against the rearlens, light travelpath alignment does.
So panning and quick tracking moves can confuse the IBIS software, hence the very writen complain about jitter on video of the panasonic when the G80 was released. They modified the firmware because of this complain in v1.2.
(i think IBIS remain muted when it detects motion in one direction. Panning, angle change, (rotating along your own axle like you do when taking a panorama shot or following moving objects.)
Never tried to shut IBIS down, i think i can’t in my G80, and tracking BIF’s in order to see if it’s les shaky on my EVF.
There is no inherent difference between DSLRs and mirrorless cameras in image quality.
And, something I have been bringing to the attention of those who think digital photography in general is an easier way to take photos.
But it’s a different experience of photography. In a way, a speed bump has been removed. With mirrorless, if you don’t consciously think about slowing down and taking the best possible photo, it’s easier to take “happenstance” pictures – and a lot of them. It’s also easy to spend insufficient time post-processing your better photographs, since you have more ground to cover and always more photos to process.
That’s why, even though the image quality of mirrorless matches or exceeds that of DSLRs, the quality of an image may not. I don’t think this should scare you away from switching; in the right hands, the better technology of mirrorless cameras can allow you to broaden and maybe even improve your work. However, better photos aren’t inevitable just because your gear is newer or has better specs.
And, anyway, I already have a mirrorless camera that takes images up to 460Mpx and a tilt-shift mechanism to avoid DoF limitations…
Spencer is just so right when he alludes to photographers rating cameras according to how many features they have or how many images they can take in a single outing.
And that last point is the problem. Nowadays so many folks take, or even “grab” snapshots, where very little time is spent thinking about the finished result because “we can always fix it in post”.
To all of you “latest and greatest” fans, I will repeat a challenge that a made a while ago - go out with an image in mind, find it, frame it, expose for it, but only press the shutter once. Just pretend that you have my Ebony SV45Te with only one sheet of film and that that sheet of film will cost you €10 or so to expose and process. What’s more, you are not allowed to look at the screen on the back of the camera, in case you are tempted to take another shot. You must wait until you get home and process the shot before seeing it for the first time.
In summary, learn to make a photo rather than “spraying and praying”.
We might moan about Mike’s meanderings, but one thing he keeps on saying is it is the photographer that makes the image, not the camera
The only change to the framing was to reduce the height only, so that it makes a borderless print on A2 paper.
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
862
A more updated answer to that statement is: It depends on the properties and limitations of your camera and how the photographer manage to best use these tools and adapt them to the various motifs.
There is no problem to see pictures today that would not have been able to take without all this new tech or all the advancements done in for example modern RAW-konverters. In some cases they would not have been able to take at all and in others the quality of these pictures would have been far inferior in technical quality without this tech.
The case today is that some pictures gets taken even without any photographer at all is framing the single picture.
I think this stance you refer Mike to have is far too simplistic and almost humiliating. His contribution has been far deeper than that as I consider this last discussion around mirrorless systems an unhappy exeption.
A problem today is that many photographers today think that their role in this process of taking the pictures is bigger than it really is and the real problem is that they refuse to see that. I see it just as another expression of the “I, me and myself” - world we are living in and it is very interesting now to wittness the clash of that stance when AI harshly corrects it very impolitely and rude.
Just some week ago I read about a publisher that released a book of fine art of more than 200 pictures entirely made by AI. They had totally ceased to rely on photographers and probably decreased the production cost extremely much. That is just an early wake up call of what is waiting many photographers of today.
Once I published a review for a small historical paper about a doctoral thesis written here in Sweden about the use of the Xylographic technique in illustrations of papers and books. (“Xylografi och pressbild” by Lena Johannesson). These illustrations were pre photo illustrations made by a pretty small group of illustrators. They were all layed off and replaced when photography got mainstream and photograpes replaced Xylography-pictures in papers and books.
Now AI-generated images that are more of a real “image” of a desert in the sence of that french word, than anything else as it is generated by a “black box” we can’t even see.
Right. It was already overdue, your LF experience. Please show us some birds-in-flight shots with it at 460 Mpx. A running oystrich will also do.
Did it ever cross your mind „what‘s the reason that I‘m the only LF photographer here in this forum?“ Any ideas? Want some?
And btw. your math game with 460 MPx doesn‘t tell anything about real resolution, it’s just the size the scanner gives you. It would also do a 460MPs scan of an empty white paper. LF lenses have their own issues and weaknesses, but as they are produced in very small batches and with a lot of manual work involved, they‘re not the best tool for each job (no lens is). There are so many downsides of LF, but the upside always remains: As it is tough to learn and time and money consuming to practice, the whole process needs a lot more effort and ability to visualize before you press the shutter.
It’s nothing wrong with contemplating for one single shot. But it’s also nothing wrong with practising more how to get an image faster than you do.
That heron would have walked to another place with tasty fish before you even set up your tripod - and the water rings would just be gone. So, sometimes your constant coming up with LF at every possible and impossible occasion is just a funny spleen.
I spent half an hour with that heron and watched how slow, precise and secure it walked over cobbles, moss, slippery grounds, balancing his body on incredibly thin legs and catching fish no longer than 4 cm.
There are subjects a LF set up is good for. And other subjects it’s just an excavator to dig out a single carot. And this negative attitude of
falls back on yourself why did you buy a D850 instead of remaining with D100? There’s one “latest and greatest” fan here, your protégé and tough student case Mike who just posted two days ago
Should I waste time to count his posts since? No, I was already sure it was an empty promise. One more or less of him doesn’t matter.
No, I’m not allergic to Google.
Just cumming up. The 5 axes IBIS is inclusive the lens stabilization. I remember I’ve read on the Nikon side somewhere that when a non-VR lens is connected only 3 axes are used.
As IBIS stands for in-body-image-stabilisation, I don’t believe, there’s any 5 axis IBIS. It would be mechanically rather complicated, fragile and vulnerable.
The article talks about “image stabilisation”, which is not limited to the movements the sensor can perform (or the actuators around it). I think (and have seen today) a cooperation of sensor and lens actuations delivers very good results
In the time after photography was invented, artists were screaming about the effect this “new magic” would have on their “craft”. But the truth is that we now have artists who use photography as a basis for their paintings. In fact, going further back in history, artists like Vermeer used a camera obscura in the 17th century, long before it was possible to record an image on a light-sensitive medium.
My friend Helen does watercolour painting and specialises in B&W photography as well. As well as “making” stunning photographic prints, she also uses her iPhone, iPad, Canon compact and DSLR to capture images specifically as the basis for a painting. I couldn’t paint to save my life, so I stick to photography, mainly with my D850, but also with my MF and LF film cameras from time to time.
I rarely want to take action shots of either animals, people or vehicles, so a lot of what mirrorless cameras offer is basically irrelevant.
Images made from AI sources is something I totally refuse to support or participate in. It is basically “justified” theft, in that it uses (fragments of) other people’s images, often without their knowledge or consent or even acknowledgement.
It is not photography since it doesn’t rely on light being written to a medium and it can only be tortuously described as the artists work in that the “artist” is responsible for inputting phrases that will inform the AI engine what to steal in order to create the desired image.
Indeed. That was just a game of anything you can do I can do better But, looking up typical film “resolution” in ppi, you will find an equivalence of 3000-4000ppi and, from practical experience of scanning 5" x 4" sheets at 2400ppi, I do get 115Mpx files.
Then compare a 24mm x 36mm sensor from a 46Mpx camera and you start to wonder why one would bother with film. Certainly, for 6cm x 7cm MF negatives, scanned at 2400ppi gives me an image 5670px x 6614px, or just over 37Mpx.
So, why do I not sell my two MF cameras to fund a mirrorless? Simple. There is something “sexy” about the design and feel of the Mamiya 7II and the RZ67 has the most amazing mirror slap you have ever heard.
Where’s the romance in a device that doesn’t let you know it’s doing something?
Indeed and that is where it takes an experienced photographer to use the right tool for a particular job. So, when a client comes along and asks you to produce a 5m x 4m, geometrically correct, print, how are you going to manage with your “pocket” camera? Over the years I have used everything from LF to iPhone for commercial work.
I class myself as a craftswoman, who as taken the time to learn how to make photographs with any camera. Yes, I could just as easily use a “latest and greatest” mirrorless but, for the work that I do, my “almost new” D850 does everything I need.
Why did I upgrade from the D100? Because, for the large prints that I make, I needed the resolution that the D850 gives me without having to hump around a 15kg backpack with the Ebony even for smaller images. Buying a mirrorless camera doesn’t change that.
Then there’s the whole palaver of either using a lens adapter or spending a small fortune on new lenses.
And, if someone gave me a mirrorless camera and lenses tomorrow? Well, I wouldn’t hold on tenaciously to my D850 but, I would certainly need to see if it’s really worth the hassle of learning yet another camera, when all I would do is to set everything to manual and take one shot at a time.
“Go to hell, such billboards are environmentally unfriendly”
“Go to Joanna, Brittany is very beautiful at this time of the year. She also has a billboard printer in her grange.”
“Get a decent website and stop polluting the scenery”
“If you pay as much as a Gitzo Athena will cost second hand, I can help you with a cool gigapixel panorama. Else go to Joanna. And say hello to her. Tell her my usual share is 15%”
(Never underestimate the power of panos. And in the distance you need to see the whole picture, no one will detect the finesses and superior details of a large format print, darling )
And now I blow the full power of sublime gear geekiness at you and ask you “have you ever worked with Sinar? Cause I did, darling” Like my friend Helmut I used it mainly for selfies…
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
871
The philosofically interesting thing about generative-AI is that there isn’t even a motif that can be framed anymore. If a human is interacting with AI via a prompt feeding AI the motif that in the best case might exist in this operators mind - the operator doesn’t even need to be a photographer with a photographers eye.
What I am trying to say is that digital photo might once have been seen as a major game changer from the analog process but in fact it changed very little. Analog photographs just got some new tools that did not treathen the profession at all first. BUT it changed the economic fundamentals totally after some years.
In Sweden the professional photographers paper called “F” (photographer in Swedish is “fotograf”) made a survey around 2012 or 2013 that showed that the number of professional photographers had doubled from 4000 to 8000 between 2008-2012. That caused a massive proletarisation of the profession since the money in the business was about the same while the number of professional photographers had doubled in the same time.
Sometimes we read here from photographers that the tech itself is of close to none importance - the photographer is almost everything. Well this survey really turns that upside down since the reason so many felt “called” was that the new more and more smart and competent support systems in the advanced system cameras almost instantly had lowered the need for personal technical skills substantially both for pictures and video.
AI on the contrary, is like the transition from xylografics to photography - a real paradigm shift that changes everything and it doesn’t matter at all if you and I like it or not. We just have to face that this changes everthing wether we like it or not and it won’t go away even if we hope so when turning our heads away from it or closes our eyes.
I can already see we have past the “protest and obstruction phase” in my country where our traditionally really strong labor unions almost have given up and the really poorly organized professional photographers won’t have a chans. Our biggest Unions have made Tesla a hell this winter blocking harbors from unloading cars and workshops from reoaring them but they realise already they are pretty helpless when it comes to AI. Unlike fighting Teslas toxic corporate culture they have hard to understand where the war and the front really is and how to fight this new “problem” and challenge.
Now our very techfriendly country, unions and governments seems to urg the educational sector and the industry to make the best of the new situation an adapt - the faster the better.
because before and after 3) you used a topic number for one direction and now you name two. It would be „along the optical axis“. Actually, 5 axis systems don‘t move the sensor in that direction, it would impact focus pane more than a little body shake towards or away of the subject. Instead, they turn it around the optical axis. To my (maybe false) knowledge Olympus, Panasonic and Sony have this 5-axis compensation and at least Olympus claims, lens and sensor actuators are orchestrated as one system. I‘ve seen images taken at 1 sec and no tripod (on DPR)
why did you buy a D850 instead of remaining with D100? There’s one “latest and greatest” fan here, your protégé and tough student case Mike who just posted two days ago
But, looking up typical film “resolution” in ppi, you will find an equivalence of 3000-4000ppi and, from practical experience of scanning 5" x 4" sheets at 2400ppi, I do get 115Mpx files.
)
